He remains unconvinced Earth is over 6000 years old.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-stumbled-upon-a-major-fossil-find/?tid=sm_fb
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-stumbled-upon-a-major-fossil-find/?tid=sm_fb
Creationist museum founder discovers 60 million year old fossil
- Thread starter GK4Herd
- Start date
I have made it known that my views have changed over the years, but how can we really know for sure exactly how old something is just by looking at it? That's my entire problem with dating fossils.
No. I know they do carbon dating and things of that nature. What I'm saying is how do we know that the scale they are using is accurate? I mean someone, somewhere came up with the scale. How can we be absolutely certain that it's 100% accurate?
I am sure with anything, there is an error range, in this case it is +/- 60 million years.
We can't be absolutely certain. We know how fast C14 decays. We have a pretty solid idea of how much there was in a thing when it died. And we know how much is in it now. Using all that together we can make a very good estimate of how long ago the thing lived.
It could turn out some day that some assumption we are making about carbon dating is wrong, and then we'd have to reevaluate. That's unlikely though (or at least it's unlikely to change a whole lot), and a lot of other things wouldn't make a lot of sense either then.
We can't cure the common cold or predict the weather many times. There has to be some kind of error.
There is a lot of error. I don't know what it's down to now but it's in the thousands of years I think.
A couple of points here...this fossil wasn't dated using carbon-14 dating. Since carbon-14 has a half life of about 57000 years, it is only accurate up to that length of time. (I think it's important to point out that 57,000 years far exceeds the 6000 year old earth held by some.) Carbon-14 dating is used for organic material (living things). This fossil in the article was an impression in the rock sediment that it was found in. There wasn't any organic material found with the fossil.
Let's look at the whole premise used for dating things. We know that the atoms of certain material (carbon-14, uranium 235, etc.) are unstable and decay at very observable and measurable rates. Some of these unstable elements (isotopes) have decay rates and a half-life that goes into the millions of years. By measuring where these elements are in their decay process, age can be determined with a reasonable range of accuracy. These isotopes are not found in sedimentary rocks though. They are found in igneous rocks. Igneous rocks can be found in sedimentary layers. These igneous rocks contain the isotopes that can be used to determine age. So when a fossil is found, scientist locate these rocks above and below the strata of sedimentary rock that it was found in. By dating the isotopes in this material they can bracket the age range for the fossil. This isn't going to find the age down to the year, but even with ultra conservative margins of error, we can throw the 6000 year argument out the window.
But again, the decay of atomic material is both observable and measurable. I find it astonishing that people can put their trust into GPS systems and atomic clocks, which rely on the resonation of cesium atoms, to measure time and find their way, but can't buy into observable scientific knowledge of the decay of atoms. It just takes an astounding amount of desire to hold onto your belief system to ignore everything you have to ignore to believe in a young earth.
Let's look at the whole premise used for dating things. We know that the atoms of certain material (carbon-14, uranium 235, etc.) are unstable and decay at very observable and measurable rates. Some of these unstable elements (isotopes) have decay rates and a half-life that goes into the millions of years. By measuring where these elements are in their decay process, age can be determined with a reasonable range of accuracy. These isotopes are not found in sedimentary rocks though. They are found in igneous rocks. Igneous rocks can be found in sedimentary layers. These igneous rocks contain the isotopes that can be used to determine age. So when a fossil is found, scientist locate these rocks above and below the strata of sedimentary rock that it was found in. By dating the isotopes in this material they can bracket the age range for the fossil. This isn't going to find the age down to the year, but even with ultra conservative margins of error, we can throw the 6000 year argument out the window.
But again, the decay of atomic material is both observable and measurable. I find it astonishing that people can put their trust into GPS systems and atomic clocks, which rely on the resonation of cesium atoms, to measure time and find their way, but can't buy into observable scientific knowledge of the decay of atoms. It just takes an astounding amount of desire to hold onto your belief system to ignore everything you have to ignore to believe in a young earth.
It takes a lot of denial of observation to look at the order present on this planet and in this universe and then deny the existence of intelligent design.
Can you elaborate what you mean by the order present on the planet and universe. I'm interested in your thoughts but can't really debate or agree with knowing exactly what you mean.
Just think how randomly lucky we are that there are bees, that the earth is tilted just like it is, and that when water freezes it becomes more dense but doesn't sink in water.
This is extremely shortsighted, biased thinking.
The conditions faced on this earth now haven't always been like that. That is why humans and animals weren't always able to survive during other periods on this planet. And, at sometime, there will be another period which won't be conducive to humans or animals surviving. Of course, regardless if it is done by humans (war, disease, etc.) or naturally (meteors, earthquakes, etc.), your kind will claim that it is further proof of the accuracy of the bible instead of what others have predicted for years.
But, if you want to give credit to your God about this perfect condition for humans to thrive, what is the purpose for all of the imperfect conditions? Further, why would an all-powerful god even make it necessary for bees to help our crops or water to be so essential to us? An all-powerful god could easily have skipped those steps.
Ok...I understand where you're going with the bees and their importance to life. I kind of get the tilted Earh thing because of how it creates the seasons. I would argue that our magnetic field is much more important though. But where are you going with the ice thing?
Instead of trying to discredit religion, we should look for a real world way of achieving that kind of peace ourselves. I haven't found it, but it's what we're all looking for. Maybe if these religious people saw a way that life could be good enough without it, they would give it up.
But you're not going to shame or mock people into anything. Doesn't work. Makes them more proud of it. Worse than that, it seems to show some jealousy of it. Maybe not the belief in God part, but what that belief brings them. Envious of the bliss. Bliss we should be able to find without religion, if we're so smart.
But you're not going to shame or mock people into anything. Doesn't work. Makes them more proud of it. Worse than that, it seems to show some jealousy of it. Maybe not the belief in God part, but what that belief brings them. Envious of the bliss. Bliss we should be able to find without religion, if we're so smart.
Ice protects oceans, rivers, and lakes from freezing solid. The ice layer that forms at the top of a body of water acts as an insulating blanket (because ice is a poor heat conductor) that helps protect the remaining water from freezing. This is critical for the maintenance of aquatic life.
Ice causes turnover of lake waters. Turnover plays an important role in oxygenating and cleansing the deepest lake waters, keeping them habitable for aquatic life.
Ice causes turnover of lake waters. Turnover plays an important role in oxygenating and cleansing the deepest lake waters, keeping them habitable for aquatic life.
GPS measurements can actually be verified and checked by other means that are independent of their answers. There are also errors within GPS caused by multiple sources(ionosphere, multipath, signal to noise ratios, and satellite geometry). When using precise GPS measurements most professionals check their GPS with know values. Your Garmin may be within 2 meters today at noon and by 5pm you might get a different answer and the same with tomorrow. Low grade GPS systems found in phones and the Tom Tom have lower cost clocks. The results fit within a circular error of probability. But, hey get me within 15 feet of my house and I know my house is there. Precise GPS measurements, such as used in land surveying, can be verified and checked(to within certain acceptable tolerances) with terrestrial measurements to known points. They are completely independent of the GPS measurement.
Now, how are the carbon dating and people saying the earth is 60 million years old verifying it? Are they off a few million years? I really don't know.
Let's say it IS off a few million years. So the range of those fossils are 58 to 62 million years old? That's close enough to my house to find my way there as well. Lol...still older than 6000 years old. Again...to argue a young earth is blatantly ignoring so much science and evidence that you're just being argumentive or you are so entrenched into your belief system that you render yourself obtuse.
Do you really believe the earth is 6000 years old? I hope you're being argumentative on this.
Denial of intelligent design requires you to be as entrenched in your belief as anyone else in their belief.
The parameters for life as we know it on this planet allow for little variance. That doesn't prove anything, but it's some evidence.
And there are exactly zero papers written that describe with conclusive scientific evidence of how life originated on this planet. So you depend on faith as much as any religious person.
The parameters for life as we know it on this planet allow for little variance. That doesn't prove anything, but it's some evidence.
And there are exactly zero papers written that describe with conclusive scientific evidence of how life originated on this planet. So you depend on faith as much as any religious person.
No I don't believe the earth is 6000 years old. But, I sometimes also don't trust the scientific community as they chase dollars. The Global Warming issue is a great example of this.
You have some scientific evidence that the earth is old. It is not conclusive. If I remember correctly, your evidence is based on the assumption that c14 has always been constant in the environment.
No...that is not my evidence or assumption. Read my earlier reply in this thread. C14 dating is only good on organic material less than 57000 years old. This fossil was an impression left in sedimentary rock. There was no organic material found so c-14 dating could not be used.
Some isotopes have a half life of seconds and days. Others have half life of millions of years. Uranium 238 has a half life of billions. The isotopes found in igneous rocks tht bracket the fossil were used to approximate the age.
Some examples...
Ham's explanation makes abosolutely no sense. If the turbulence of a great flood would have ripped up the sedimentary layers and deposited these creatures to form perfect fossils like he implies, why are all the fossils from the Cambrian extinction found in the same strata no matter where you dig throughout the world? How come there is no evidence of human fossils found in the same strata as dinosaurs? Wouldn't this great turbulent upheaval of sediment have mixed human and dinosaue fossils especially if the earth has only been around 6000 years. Yet they have never been found in the same strata because they never coexisted. They missed each other by over 60 million years.
"Yet they have never been found in the same strata because they never coexisted."
So, because it hasn't been found, it never existed. Sounds like someone has become entrenched in a belief system.
So, because it hasn't been found, it never existed. Sounds like someone has become entrenched in a belief system.
You're feeding the troll GK.
edit: Just remember the only thing harder than winning an argument with a smart person is winning one with a dumb person.
edit: Just remember the only thing harder than winning an argument with a smart person is winning one with a dumb person.
It's your argument man.
The missing links for evolution don't exist because they've never been found. Probably should quit looking.
Since there is literally no chance of you ever changing your mind on this given any amount of evidence it's pointless to argue with you on this. Just like every other thing you believe.
From personal attacks to.....
generalizing.
Right on cue.
You're too sharp for me.